Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

LIMIT ON FUTURE LOANS UNDER HARBOURS ACT 1964 S. 11, AND REPEAL OF PRESENT LIMIT ON LOANS AND GRANTS UNDER SS. 11 AND 12

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: This is a rather different Bill in scope, and the circumstances are rather different, from when I had the pleasure of discussing ports under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, earlier in the year. I do not wish to follow the precedent then or in any way to delay the implementation of the present Bill, but it would be for the convenience of the Committee if for the record the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport would give a little detail on the deliberate and, I am sure, extremely careful thinking that has gone into the provision of the two figures in the Clause, the lower figure of £75 million and the higher figure, which can be reached after a Resolution of the House, of £125 million.
What kind of time scale is envisaged? Will the £75 million only more or less meet the existing commitments? Of course, the figure bites only when it comes to the actual payment of loans as distinct from indications of support in the future.
Second, removing grants from the provisions of the Sections of the Harbours Act, 1964, mentioned in the Clause, gives a different bearing on the figures. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us roughly what the division has been between loans and grants over the period? Is it envisaged that there will be any change in policy as between payment of grant and telling the harbour authorities that they can proceed only by way of loan?
Can the hon. Gentleman give the Committee some indication on those points—how the figures are arrived at and what kind of period is involved, and the division between loans and grants and whether there is likely to be any change in policy on these matters?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) makes it quite clear that this is a different Bill in scope, and I fully accept the compliment implied in that. It is certainly very relevant to the immediate problem with which we are confronted in the ports—the provision of the necessary money to carry on with the modernisation processes.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some very reasonable questions, which I shall do my best to answer in a certain amount of detail because they are detailed questions and are entitled to that sort of consideration.
The figure of £75 million, like the additional £50 million, is bound to have the general safeguard behind it that it has been taken to provide a reasonable period before we return to the House for more. I think that I can help the House by explaining the sort of schemes we have in the pipeline for which money is required. The first stage is the additional £75 million-worth of loans, and approvals have been given, but loans not yet issued, for £19 million-worth of schemes for which the first of this money will be required.
I have here a detailed list of the schemes, but I am sure that it is as familiar to the right hon. Gentleman as it is to me, so I shall not spell it out in detail. It includes a considerable number of individual schemes. I see that the Forth Ports Authority is to have £1,300,000 in respect of interest on loans,


and loans for the balance of the first stage of the Seaforth scheme will account for nearly £8 million. The B. and I terminal for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is to have £1·625 million. The Milford Haven dredging attracts more than £1 million. The Redcar iron ore terminal is just over £3½ million with another £1 million in respect of interest on loans. This first stage provision not yet issued amounts to about £19 million.
In addition, a further £12 million is in respect of applications which have been agreed, together with applications which are under consideration or pending. These now include two schemes in respect of Greenock and Grangemouth which my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading that he had approved for Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1964, purposes, and jointly they will take £5·1 million. There are other applications in respect of the Ports of London, Medway, Tees and Hartlepool and certain other minor projects at another £6·8 million. That takes up all the specific schemes. There are always many schemes which have just reached us, or which are about to reach us, which we are considering, or may have to consider and it serves no purpose to try to give some degree of priority to them, or to say whether we may approve them.
Apart from the two categories, the £19·3 million for the one I have mentioned, and the £11 million to £12·9 million for the second, there is a considerable reserve within the £75 million for other schemes which in the judgment of the Department are likely to require money in the not-too-distant future. One of the things we shall look at is the next stage of the Seaforth project. This is a major scheme which has to be financed piece by piece.
The right hon. Member asked about the removal of grants from the ceilings within the Bill and asked whether I would distinguish between loans and grants. Up to 30th June, 1970, loans and grants totalling £81 million have been issued, and broken down that represents £54 million in loans and £27 million in grants. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, we do not believe that it is necessary to continue to extend grants within the ceiling provided in the Bill, because this is dealt with in the

annual Estimates, and Parliament therefore has every opportunity to exercise control.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the removal of grants from the ceiling implied any change in policy.

Mr. Mulley: I accept that Parliamentary control of grants is exercised by the annual Votes, and that was a provision which was included in the Ports Bill and no point is at issue on that. What I am asking is whether there is to be any change in policy as to when a grant or a loan is made.

Mr. Heseltine: I was about to mention that. My right hon. Friend said that this policy was under review, not specifically within the context of ports, but for the general industrial situation. The Government will be reaching their decision and it would be wrong to regard a change simply within the context of the Bill as a change in policy. It is a technical change in the Bill and it must be seen as something which is under general review by the Government for the industrial situation at large, as a means of encouraging and stimulating investment throughout the country.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Mulley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He was wielding a dead bat extremely well. After watching with great interest his development as a promising Parliamentary stroke player, I admire his rapid mastery of the technique of the dead bat. I saw from his opening remarks that he still had the possibility of strokes in him, but, as every cricketer knows, one does not throw one's bat around at the very beginning. The Bill simply implements one Clause of the Ports Bill which the hon. Gentleman opposed so strongly.
However, we are agreed that the development of the ports should continue. I do not want to delay it. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend on their rapid and successful introduction of legislation. We cannot promise always to be so co-operative as on this occasion. However, I wish the hon. Gentleman success with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he wants further legislation, and I hope that his right hon. Friend will be as prodigal in the provision of Parliamentary time. I hope that the Bill will rapidly pass its remaining stages.

Mr. Heseltine: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very kind personal references to me, which are always much appreciated. I look forward to many more such references as time goes on. We have made it quite clear that we are happy to continue with this Clause which appeared in the Ports Bill, but our joy in doing so is as nothing compared with our joy at not continuing with the other 68 Clauses of that Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

FIJI INDEPENDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

RETENTION OF CITIZENSHIP OF UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES BY CERTAIN CITIZENS OF FIJI

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

11.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): On Second Reading, a number of questions were asked about this Clause and, in view of the interest shown in it, I should like briefly to enlarge upon its effect.
There are certain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies resident in Fiji who will not automatically become citizens of Fiji at independence, because they do not have the requisite connections by birth or otherwise. They will therefore retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when Fiji becomes independent. This category is thought to number no more than a few hundred.
There will be some citizens of other Commonwealth countries who have registered in Fiji since 5th May, this year, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Fiji delegation at the conference was not willing to extend Fiji citizenship automatically to such cases. It argued that the five-year residence qualification for such registration under the British nationality legislation conflicted with the seven-year period of residence required under existing Fiji immigration law to qualify for permanent residence. As a compromise, it was finally agreed that those registered by 5th May, the date on which the conference report was signed, should be accorded Fiji citizenship automatically.
Those registering after 5th May and up to 9th October will not therefore have


Fiji citizenship automatically. I am informed that the number of persons who have been registered in Fiji between 6th May and 16th July as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies is 24. I should add that I understand that 88 applications are still pending. All these people would be entitled to apply after independence for citizenship of Fiji if they had seven years' residence.
There is another category of persons whose position is more complex and I am afraid that this statement may sound complex. These people have the connections with Fiji that will give them Fiji citizenship automatically at independence but at the same time they have the connections with this country or with one of its remaining dependencies which would qualify them under Clause 3 to retain the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies which they already possess. They will thus have dual citizenship unless or until they renounced one or the other. I emphasise that the terms of Clause 3 are standard and have appeared in many previous independence Acts.
People who will have dual citizenship at independence will include about 1,500 Banabans and some children born in Fiji of British parents. There may also be small numbers of other persons born in Fiji whose fathers or paternal grandfathers were born either in the United Kingdom or one of the remaining dependencies. These people whose connections are with other dependencies would be subject to control under the Commonwealth Immigrant Act. There is no evidence that any of them have a desire to migrate to this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SWAZILAND (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Ordered,
That Mr. Ernest Armstrong, Mr. Bernard Conlan, Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. John Osborn have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the Swaziland House of Assembly.—[Mr. R. W. Elliott.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. W. Elliott.]

CHALK EXTRACTION, WILTSHIRE DOWNS (INQUIRY)

11.23 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Turning from Fiji to matters nearer home, I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary upon his appointment, which is welcomed in all parts of the House. He is, I know, a preservationist at heart and as such will have my support. I am only sorry that in welcoming him here for what I believe is his first Adjournment debate I should not have more attractive fare to put before him.
Three years ago my constituents suffered an injustice. The facts are safely on the record in HANSARD of 25th July, 1969, and 19th March, 1970. I have no wish now to add or subtract from that record nor need I cover that unhappy ground in detail again.
Wiltshire people were the victims of the first secret planning inquiry in history, a fact confirmed by the previous Administration. My constituents have paid dearly for that, and it seems that they will pay more dearly still in the future. In what I have to say I invite my hon. Friend not to hesitate to intervene to correct me on any point of fact.
What happened was that a company from another part of England sought permission to carry out large-scale mineral workings in one of our loveliest unspoiled valleys. A public inquiry was held. We discovered two years later that before the inquiry the company had called at the Ministry of Housing and had asked that part of the inquiry be held in camera. As a result the inspector conducting the enquiry was alerted to expect this request at the inquiry.
I interpolate here that in this country about one-third of a million applications for planning permission are made every year; that at that moment there had never been a planning inquiry held in secret; that the Minister had several weeks in which to act but it never appeared to him that it was desirable to warn a soul of what was afoot. Thus with no warning from the Minister this charming little piece of play-acting took place at the inquiry between the inspector and the appellant company.
My unsuspecting constituents were hustled from the room. Not a single elected member of any local authority remained behind. The distinguished geologist from London University, the only man who understood things, was equally turned away because the company objected to his presence. Justice did not shine very brightly that day in Salisbury. Openness and fairness, the two cardinal principles which the Franks Committee sought to inject into our inquiry procedures, were both ruthlessly jettisoned. Then 15 months later the nation was in the grip of financial crisis. The Minister of Housing, against his better judgment, succumbed to export pressures from the Board of Trade and allowed the appeal and the machines went to work in that valley.
This was not an easy case to fight. After this inquiry the Minister took 15 months to make up his mind. I will never criticise him for that delay but at the same time I could hardly raise matters before he had reached a decision. On the day that his decision reached me I referred matters to the then Prime Minister, asking him for a standstill. The then Prime Minister in reply supported his Minister of Housing. Time was running on. I then referred certain aspects of the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner. His deliberations, and I do not criticise him for this, took no less than six months. While matters lay before the Parliamentary Commissioner, with his rather narrow terms of reference, it seemed to me that it would be wholly discourteous if I made an additional reference to the Council on Tribunals because the Parliamentary Commissioner is an ex officio member of the Council.
When the Council on Tribunals received it, at once it grasped the seriousness of the issue. But by then it was late

in the day. More than two years had passed since those events in Salisbury and much water had flowed under the bridge. The Council indicated to me
having regard to the date on which the Minister's decision was announced, the Council would not have been prepared to recommend that the inquiry should be reopened".
Put another way, it was too late. The machines were already at work.
But the Council has been my friend. It seized on the point that such an event must never happen again, and for that I am grateful to it. Discussions between my hon. Friend's Department and the Council on Tribunals began. Those discussions are still in progress. They have continued for a year. They still have some way to go. These are grave issues, and justice cannot be hurried.
Then at last I was free to raise matters in this Chamber, and I was deeply grateful for the sympathy and support shown to my constituents. I remember my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Posts and Telecommunications saying in the House that the whole House would have a sense of unease about the story which had been unfolded. The reaction was the same in another place. No less a figure than Lord Brooke of Cumnor, a former Conservative Minister of Housing and Local Government, expressed his deep concern at what had taken place.
The national Press was equally unanimous. One newspaper said:
If anybody doubts that public affairs should be handled openly and that anything resembling secrecy carries special dangers, let him read about recent happenings in the Dean Valley, Wiltshire.
That was the theme of the leading article.
The feeling of Wiltshire people was described in another morning newspaper as
the true spirit of English liberty still gloriously and unexpectedly alive in 1969".
Thus, for a while, the issue burned brightly and then it spluttered and died, and the civil servants put away their files with a sigh of relief.
But justice is not mocked, and once again the same issue lies before us. The foot is in the door. Now come the pressures to open the door wider. This time, unlike the last time, events lie in front of us, and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it is easier to take a bird in front than behind.
On 18th June, a month ago, while the polling stations were still open, somebody at the Ministry of Housing was good enough to write to me. He courteously wrote to me at the House of Commons. It was kind of him to anticipate the decision of the electors of Salisbury. It always puzzles me, but I sometimes think that civil servants deliberately make their signature illegible to hide their identity. At all events, he told me in this letter that a planning inquiry was due to be held at the Guildhall, Salisbury, on 28th July. The outgoing Minister had chosen that date and instructed his inspector to attend. The inquiry, which lies 10 days ahead of us, is to consider applications to extend the activities of those who were permitted to carry out mineral workings in the Dean Valley. When the letter reached me, the final election results were still coming in, but it was joyously clear that there was to be a change of Administration, and by 20th June, therefore, I was able to write to my right hon. Friend the new Minister of Housing.
I know that the problems confronting a new Minister taking over a great Department of State are manifold and I would wish for him that in the opening days the normal machinery would cope satisfactorily with day-to-day matters. But I considered it imperative that he should appreciate at the outset that this was no mere run-of-the-mill business. Time was critically short. The House would soon be rising for the Summer Recess. A date for the inquiry had been fixed. Either my right hon. Friend could postpone the inquiry for a few weeks until there had been time for consideration or follow the road determined by his predecessor. The choice for him was wide open.
The fact that these two applications had lain on the table since last year meant that a few weeks one side or the other could not materially matter, and yet a few weeks would give just that time for reflection which a vital issue like this demanded. But, in reply, the Minister made clear that he could not consider postponement.
Since then, I have moved very carefully indeed. I have done all that is open to me to do to warn my right hon. Friend, and I believe that here he would accept what I say. I sense that if there

is a pull for me between my constituents and wishing to ease the task of my right hon. Friend in his new work there is equally for him a pull between wishing to help a colleague, which I have no doubt he would wish to do, and supporting the line adopted by those in his Department over the last three years. What has placed my right hon. Friend and myself in this unhappy juxtaposition is the insistence on maintaining the date of the inquiry at 28th July.
Before raising matters in the House, I thought that I must first establish how far down the strange road of his predecessor my right hon. Friend was prepared to go. I therefore tabled a very simple Question. I asked the Minister if the public inquiry to be held in Salisbury on 28th July would be held in public. I wanted to establish whether the events of 1967 were a disastrous lapse on the part of the previous Administration, or whether the secret planning inquiry is a new feature which we must expect from Labour and Conservative Administrations alike.
What was the Minister's answer? He replied
I have no present reason to believe that in camera proceedings will be sought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 96.]
Now we know. The new Minister is not prepared to eschew such practices. The inquiry may be in public, or it may not. My right hon. Friend is keeping his options open, and thus if I choose to go to the public inquiry in the heart of my constituency on 28th July I may be admitted, or I may not. I may find the door closed, just as it was closed in 1967. The Minister stands firmly shoulder to shoulder with his predecessor on this issue. They both claim that the decision whether an inquiry should be held in public or in camera rests on the discretion of the inspector conducting the inquiry. This is the language, the true tone, of the previous Administration.
In 1967 a distinguished geologist travelled from London to Salisbury. He might just as well have stayed in London. He was good enough to call on me here this week because he wishes to help his friends in Wiltshire. He does not believe the claims which have been put forward, but I could not possibly recommend him to make the journey a second time.


Moreover, the cost of railway tickets has gone up since 1967.
I ask myself what further tragic farce is necessary before the Dean Valley is finally put out of its misery? I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend has failed to allay my suspicions. If he could not give me an assurance about whether it would be held in public or in private, I had hoped that he might at least have been able to give the assurance before the date itself, and so I tabled another Question. I asked whether he could give the assurance in order to save members of the public long journeys to no purpose as happened on a previous occasion, and the answer is in HANSARD of two days ago. The answer is "No". But that answer in HANSARD of two days ago—and I acquit my right hon. Friend absolutely of this because I feel sure that he cannot have seen the answer until after it appeared in print—contains the final twist of administrative hypocrisy. It refers to
the coming inquiry, which will be concerned only with the applications for planning consent now before my right hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 228.]
The Question was answered by the Minister of State. How innocent that phrase sounds—"the coming inquiry which will be concerned only with the applications before it". The plot is as simple as that. It is so transparent.
Perhaps I should explain. Once a Minister has decided a planning issue, it is said that the matter is closed, the file is put away, and if a subsequent application is made, that application is judged on its merits in isolation. There are to be separate watertight compartments, although it is all part of the same industrial complex, and it is all part of a single continuous process.
Perhaps I might translate this into more practical terms. We have in the Dean Valley today a Trojan Horse. It was admitted by the Minister in 1967 after that secret planning inquiry. We see it, but we do not know why it is there. We were told that more than 200 other sites were explored before it was decided that this particular stretch of countryside must be sacrificed. We do not know where a single one of those 200 sites is. We do not know what tests were carried out at those sites. Our valley is taken from us, but we do not know why.
Since being admitted this Trojan Horse has acquired hundreds of acres of good farm land adjoining its modest initial pitch. The area there now is a good deal larger in extent than Hyde Park. Moreover, it has acquired acres in many other parts of my constituency. It now plans, as my hon. Friend knows, to set up on the other side of Salisbury a processing plant which will draw its raw material from the Dean Valley. Thus, we now see the outline of a single giant edifice built on the foundations of secrecy.
In 10 days' time the Minister's inspector will attend at the 18th century Guildhall in Salisbury and conduct an inquiry into the merits of this processing plant. It may be in public; it may not. Nobody knows what the process is. Nobody will be told what the process is, and only a mere handful of technicians could understand even if they were told. The inspector will not encourage questions on the previous application. That file, we must remember, is neatly closed. That is the intention.
The local authorities will be consulted. They will be invited to give their views—"Would this extension of the Dean Valley activity be a good thing or not? What do they think?" I would answer "What can they think?" They will be courteous—Wiltshire people are always courteous—and they will try to help, but not one elected member of a local authority, neither parish, district nor county councillor, was present at the secret hearing. How can they be asked to contribute their views? How can they be asked to pass judgment on this extension to the Dean Valley activity? To me, even to invite them to do so is lacking in integrity. Participation in planning, yes; but participation is meaningless unless all the facts are known to all parties. I am afraid that this inquiry, like the last one, will be a charade. It is a further insult to my already bruised constituents.
Once a Minister becomes party to secrets he, and he alone, can decide whether extensions to the original activity should be allowed. That is the bitter and logical answer to the whole matter. There is no other conclusion. Where there is injury, I would expect a Conservative Minister to heal it. Indeed. I


asked my right hon. Friend if he would cause an investigation to be made into the whole matter, but the OFFICIAL REPORT of two days ago confirms that my right hon. Friend sees no need for this. Not merely is he not prepared to cause an investigation to be made. Not merely does he appear to condone what has taken place. Worse threatens than that. To my great sorrow, it would appear that he has chosen to pursue the self-same path in the days ahead.
I assure my right hon. Friend that the inquiry on 28th July will not be the last. Along the road lie yet further applications. One will follow another. Time limits will need to be extended—extended into the next century. Acreage will need to be extended too. Each fresh application will stem from the same initial secrecy behind which the original permission was granted. It is a slippery slope. Each fresh application is a further step along it. Each fresh application will bear the same stigma of in camera proceedings. This is why I sought to warn my right hon. Friend, but he is very confident.
It would be premature at this stage to assume that the Parliamentary Commissioner has said all he has to say. This problem is a problem of a continuing process—yesterday, today and tomorrow. Nor would I care to hazard a guess at the present thinking of the Council on Tribunals. On the face of it, it would appear to have been treated with modest courtesy. The former Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), said
We are having these discussions and can rely on the Council on Tribunals to insist on rules if it is thought necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 2344.]
Where are these rules? Yet in 10 days' time the Minister is to consider an extension of the 1967 installation.
I named this brief debate "A dangerous planning legacy". Dangerous it is. It is full of pitfalls. I have never wavered in my belief during these three years that the enormity of what has happened will speak for itself and that, in due time, the valley will be saved.
I have noted the undertaking in the Queen's Speech by the new Government:
My Ministers will intensify the drive to

remedy past damage to the environment, and seek to safeguard the beauty of the British countryside.
I believe that this Government will keep their promises and I would ask my hon. Friend for reassurance.

11.53 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Paul Channon): I should like at the outset to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) for his very kind remarks which I very much appreciate. I am most grateful to him for what he said and I can assure him that I will do my utmost to listen carefully to any representations he makes to me on any topic that it would be appropriate for me to hear. Obviously, I could not listen to any matters which are sub judice, but on any other matters on which he cares to approach me I shall always be at his service.
I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence on behalf of his constituents in obtaining this Adjournment debate so soon and on being so clever in finding a day when we can have an unhurried debate to allow these matters to be fully ventilated. My hon. Friend's constituents can feel that their case has been put forward persistently and energetically by my hon. Friend.
I make no complaint about my hon. Friend's deep concern over this case, although he will not expect me to agree with every detail of the case which he has outlined this morning. If I do not take his arguments point by point, I know that he will not expect me to be taken as agreeing with all the interpretations which he has put upon all the events which have taken place.
My hon. Friend is right to refer to this as a very important planning matter since it concerns the question of chalk extraction from a site about half a mile to the south of East Grimstead near Salisbury and of two planning applications which have been called-in for decision by the Minister. One of these applications concerns a railway siding for use in connection with the East Grimstead Chalk Pit and the other a minerals treatment works at Quidhampton Chalk Pit on the other side of Salisbury. Both applications are, of course, now sub judice and a local inquiry has


been arranged. The House would not expect me to comment on the merits of the cases which are before my right hon. Friend. I will confine myself therefore to matters of procedure and to past history.
I should like to begin by briefly recounting the background of the chalk quarrying at East Grimstead. On 10th November, 1966, Salisbury and Wilton Rural District Council refused English China Clays Limited planning permission for the winning and working of chalk and alterations to an access on some 25½ acres at East Grimstead, near Salisbury. An appeal was lodged with the then Minister under Section 23, Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
A local inquiry was held in June, 1967. My hon. Friend was right to say that earlier a representative of the appellant company had called at the Department to seek procedural advice about the possibility of certain evidence of a commercially confidential nature being heard in camera. He was advised that there was no bar to part of the inquiry proceedings being heard in camera if the inspector conducting the inquiry should so decide. It was a matter for his discretion after hearing any argument. The Rules of Procedure (Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1965), which have now been consolidated as the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1969, state that
… the procedure at the inquiry shall be such as the appointed person shall in his discretion determine".
This would not enable the inspector to exclude any of the parties entitled under the rules to appear.
After hearing the company's application, to which no objection was raised, the inspector agreed to hear the technical evidence in camera in the presence of representatives of the appellant company, the clerk of the rural district council who represented the local planning authority who are the statutory parties and of a solicitor representing owners of adjoining land. At the in camera proceedings, which lasted only a short time, it was agreed that the appellant company's claim about the special quality of the chalk in the appeal site should be the

subject of any necessary further technical examination by the Minister.
Following receipt of the inspector's report, including a separate report in confidence on the in camera proceedings, a long and exhaustive test was carried out of the company's confidential claims on the instructions of the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and in consultation with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and the Director of the Institute of Geological Sciences. Samples of chalk taken by the Department's geologists from several sites in Southern England were tested in the company's laboratory under the supervision of technical officers from the Government Chemist's Laboratory, the Stationery Office and the Department.
The investigations supported the company's claim that the quality of the chalk in the appeal site was crucial for the company's purposes and that similar material had not been found to be available in adequate quantities elsewhere. The then Minister then decided to allow the appeal in respect of part only of the site, about ten acres, and his decision was issued on 6th September, 1968. It was limited to a period of five years.
My hon. Friend, on behalf of his constituents, subsequently made representations to the then Minister and to the Prime Minister of the day in a number of letters from 1st May, 1967. At his request a statement of his views was read at the inquiry into the appeal in which he said that his sympathies lay firmly with those who wished to keep the area unspoiled. He later requested the then Minister to make available to him the record of the in camera proceedings in order that he should have the opportunity to commission an independent examination of the technical evidence submitted by the appellant company. This request was rejected because the in camera evidence was given to the Minister's inspector in confidence and the company were, and indeed are, entitled to expect that the confidence be respected.
My hon. Friend then asked the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate the case. The Commissioner having examined the issues was satisfied that it


was reasonable for the technical evidence to be heard in camera. He took the view that because the other parties could not effectively challenge the evidence, the then Minister was justified in the unusual course of himself undertaking to test the appellants' evidence.
My hon. Friend then complained to the Council on Tribunals about the handling of the case. It declined to intervene, though it recognised that an important procedural point had been raised and thought that there ought to be a provision in the statutory rules to deal with it. It said that it would discuss this with the appropriate Departments. Discussions on the general question of admission of in camera proceedings at future local inquiries into planning appeals are currently taking place with the Council on Tribunals, but the House will appreciate that I cannot go into detail about this at the present time. Useful informal discussions have taken place with the Council on Tribunals and good progress has been made, but this is a very complex matter. My right hon. Friend and the Lord Chancellor, who is, of course, the authority responsible for making, after formal consultation with the Council, any rules of procedure that may be considered necessary will wish to give careful thought to this question and to the Council's advice, before consulting the local authority associations and professional and other bodies who are normally consulted in these important procedural matters.
I have before me a list of the bodies which will have to be consulted before any change in the rules would take place. It would not be right to give the House the impression that these rules will be able to come in as quickly as all that. There will have to be careful study of them and careful consultations. It will take some time before any new procedures, whether by rule or otherwise, can be established.
I must emphasise that in camera proceedings are extremely rare and the Ministry would not want to encourage anyone to apply for such hearings, since the object is always to allow the maximum openness in the consideration of planning applications and appeals. Nevertheless, as the courts have always recognised, there are some circumstances where a public hearing would defeat the needs of justice and would not be in the

national interest. One of these would be if a secret manufacturing process were to be made public.
After the Parliamentary Commissioner had made his report finding no fault against the administrative handling of the East Grinstead chalk case by the Ministry, my hon. Friend had further correspondence with him, principally about two matters. First, my hon. Friend alleged that the Minister alerted the inspector, but no other parties, to the possibility of a request for in camera proceedings.
The second point on which he had correspondence with the Commissioner was that he alleged that the confidential information which the Minister had been given was public knowledge before the decision, because of patents taken out by the appellants in foreign countries.
The Parliamentary Commissioner found nothing wrong with the Minister's action in alerting the inspector nor did he accept the complaint that all the confidential information given to the Minister at the inquiry had subsequently been published. On this latter point he said:
I note, moreover, that one piece of information made available to the inspector and the Minister which concerns the application of the process rather than the process itself is not referred to in the continental patents which I have examined."—

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Did it not strike my hon. Friend as interesting that a distinguished figure like the Parliamentary Commissioner, in addition to his normal gifts, of which we are all aware, should be competent to study documents so technical as this patent in question?

Mr. Channon: Before I answer that question, perhaps I could finish the quotation from the Commissioner, which is important. He went on:
This information is stated in the Ministry's file to be of crucial importance.
My hon. Friend quoted from this very statement very fairly in one of his earlier Adjournment debates. I do not think that the Parliamentary Commissioner was called upon to make a technical judgment about the patents, but he examined the whole question of Belgian, French and Dutch patents and other matters, and noted that there was one piece of information which was made available which was not referred to in the continental patents which he examined and


which was stated to be of crucial importance. That was the basis for that remark.
But my hon. Friend exercised his rights, quite rightly, by initiating two debates on these matters in the House on 25th July last year and 19th March this year. In these, he criticised the in camera proceedings and argued that other parties should have been consulted before they were adopted.
I should like to turn now to the two applications now before my right hon. Friend. Two applications were made in 1969 by Rogers and Cooke (Salisbury) Limited, a subsidiary company of English China Clays Limited, which were "called in" last March for decision by the Minister. As I said, these applications are for a railway siding for use in connection with the East Grimstead Chalk Pit and a minerals treatment works at Quidhampton Chalk Pit on the other side of Salisbury.
Arrangements have been made for the local inquiry to take place, as my hon. Friend said, at Salisbury on 28th July and all statutory parties and other interested parties have been notified accordingly. Copies of the Minister's call-in letter and of this inquiry notice were sent to my hon. Friend. The Department showed considerable prescience, I think, in addressing their notes to him at the House.
The applicant company has provided for the inquiry a statutory statement of the submissions which it proposes to put forward and in this it has confirmed that it does not intend to take any initiative to submit evidence of a confidential character at the inquiry. Should objectors at the inquiry, however, raise issues regarding the "secret" technology of the company in respect of the chalk at East Grimstead, for the working of which planning permission has been granted, it would be open to the company to ask the inspector to take evidence in camera.
It would be for the inspector to decide what action to take if such a request were made and I can make no observations on matters which are for the inspector's discretion. Indeed, in view of the rules, it would be wholly im

proper to attempt to fetter or influence his decision in any way. It is for him to conduct the inquiry. He will act in accordance with the rules which have been laid down for conducting inquiries.
My hon. Friend has asked my right hon. Friend to postpone the inquiry arranged for 28th July and he has been informed, as he pointed out, that my right hon. Friend has not been able to meet that request. The company is entitled to have its application dealt with in the normal way just as any other citizen would. The planning application for the Quidhampton works was first made to the Salisbury and Wilton Rural District Council in June, 1969, but it was revised in November. The application for the railway siding was made to the rural district council in December, 1969. The Wiltshire County Council referred those applications to the then Minister, at his request, at the end of January, 1970, and in March the council submitted to the Minister copies of representations made in response to published notices of the applications.
On 25th March, the Minister called in both applications for his own decision. Arrangements were then put in train for a public local inquiry, which has been arranged for 28th July. The time between call-in and inquiry date is of average length. My right hon. Friend would be open to serious criticism were he to have delayed the handling of these applications. I have tried to explain that this is not possible. It would not be possible to wait until the receipt of the report of the Council on Tribunals as a considerable time would be required before decisions could be taken upon it.
The new inquiry will not in any way prejudice consideration by the local planning authority or by my right hon. Friend of any future application for an extension of chalk workings. I cannot say much about the new inquiry which is to take place. My right hon. Friend will have to consider it in due course and make a decision about this matter.
Nobody likes the idea of in camera proceedings at inquiries, particularly when matters are of widespread concern to local people, and not merely to those who are entitled to be heard on a strict


interpretation of the rules. The occasions when there is need for such procedures are, fortunately, rare and I certainly accept that the best possible safeguards must be devised. That is being done and that will be pressed forward energetically.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's very proper concern on behalf of his constituents. He has rightly put forward their views to my predecessors and pursued their interests vigorously at every stage. In fairness, however, to my predecessors and to the Department, I must point out that both the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Council on Tribunals have cleared them of any charge of maladministration.
I quote from the report of the Council on Tribunals:
The matter has been very carefully considered and the Council have come to the conclusion that as regards the present case, there are no grounds on which they would be justified in intervening.
I quote from the Parliamentary Commissioner:
In my report last year, I found nothing to criticise in the public inquiry.
That is a fair summary of their views. As, however, my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Council on Tribunals wished to examine the rules, and that is now being pressed forward.
I can well understand my hon. Friend's feelings, representing as he does one of the most beautiful parts of England. I well understand his determined efforts to preserve the amenities of the countryside and the quality of life there. Were I the Member for Salisbury, I am sure that I would attempt to act in the same way as my hon. Friend has done, but whether I should have the energy and persistence which he has shown, I do not know.
I assure my hon. Friend that both my right hon. Friend and I have not come to this decision lightly. We have most carefully examined the history of this remarkable and unique case. I know that my hon. Friend will accept that my right hon. Friend and I have considered it very carefully, as we always will, and have given weight to any representations which he makes on any issue on which it is proper for us to hear hon. Members. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that the proper course now is for the new inquiry to proceed in the normal way. As for the general question of procedure at inquiries in future, a report will be received in due course. It is far too early to say what will be in that report but I assure the House that there will be no unnecessary delay in its consideration when it arrives.
I am exceedingly sorry that in the first Adjournment debate to which I have replied and on the first occasion when I am speaking in a debate from the Box, I should have to act in a way that will not satisfy my hon. Friend. That distresses me very much. I have, however, looked at this matter very carefully, and so has my right hon. Friend, and I hope that on balance the House will agree with us that there is no practical alternative to the course of action which I have outlined. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that although I do not expect him to agree with what we have done, we have considered very carefully the courses open to us and have come to the conclusion not without a great deal of thought that the present inquiry must proceed and we must await the report from the Council on Tribunals, which, I hope, will not be too long delayed. Consultations will then take place and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall then consider the report when it arrives with very great dispatch.

SCOTLAND (EDUCATION)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I wish to say that I understand he has, quite correctly, given the Minister notice that he intends to raise a matter on the Adjournment and that the Minister is present.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I foresaw that the business of the House might collapse well before 4 o'clock and, therefore, I thought that the time might be opportune to raise a question which concerns me very much—the question of Scottish education in general. I therefore informed the Scottish Office on Wednesday night of my intention to do this, and I am very glad to see the Under-Secretary of State who speaks for Scottish education in his place. I hope that he will listen carefully to what is said by myself and at least two of my hon. Friends whom I see in their place, although I am sorry to see no Conservative Scottish Member interested enough to come and make a contribution.
There was probably no greater alarm and despondency among the Scottish people at the return of a Tory Government at the recent election than in the subject of education, and I think that their alarm will be proved to be well founded. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons why the Conservative candidates fared so badly in Scotland. If the rest of the United Kingdom had behaved as Scotland did, there would be no Tory Government today, because we were told by the Prime Minister that there would be no instant government and no hurried decisions but almost the first decision made by the Scottish Office was to announce virtually the end of any future progress in comprehensive education.
The present Government have indicated that they would discontinue the proposition of the Labour Government to end fee-paying in schools in Tory-controlled Glasgow and Edinburgh and that fee paying and privilege bought in education in Scotland will continue.
I wish, first, to deal with one or two of the particular problems and will start right at the beginning of the educational

process. I have been interested in preschool play groups. In my view, children from the age of two to five are one of the most neglected parts of the education system. The education of the children, not only north of the Border, but south, too, is run on an almost entirely voluntary basis and on a shoestring. It depends on the dedication of women, mostly the mothers of young children, and they depend for finance on a small sum from the Scottish Education Department for administrative expenses. The Pre-School Play Group Association asks that for these groups there should be a Scottish adviser; that there should be financial help for voluntary area organisers, and that there should be help with administrative expenses.
Its claims are not extravagant. I understand that the adviser in England and Wales gets a salary of £2,500 plus £500 expenses and if a Scottish adviser got the same I am sure that it would not break the Scottish Education Department—I hope that we are not in that kind of crisis. If the 13 organisers covering Scotland got expenses necessarily incurred in the course of their duties—telephone, stationery, postages and so on—it would not cost very much.
I understand that the Social Work Services Group in the Scottish Office has made a grant of £2,000 to the Glasgow branch of the Pre-School Play Group Association to help in the production of a professional documentary film about the work of the groups, and that Ogam Films of Glasgow will produce the film. I hope my statement will give some publicity to the work being done by the groups, and that the film will be seen by as many local councillors, local government officers and members of the public as possible. I understand that the film will be available for hiring from the Social Work Services Group. I hope that it will help to instil into the Scottish people the great work being done by, in the main, dedicated voluntary service, and make them realise that it has a very important part to play throughout Scottish education.
We tend to regard nursery education as a kind of luxury. Hardly any progress has been made under successive Governments in the last 25 years, although the previous Administration


made a start. On 8th July the Under-Secretary replied to a Parliamentary Question about nursery school education progress in Dundee and elsewhere. I hope that he will now indicate that the Government intend to continue the progress in nursery education that was started and carried on by the previous Labour Government from 1964 onwards.
The Conservative Party fought the election on devoting more resources to the provision of primary school education than had been the case. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) rather expected, I think, to be this Government's spokesman on Scottish Education—he must be one of the most disappointed hon. Members opposite—and the E.I.S. must also have thought that because it invited him to contribute to the Scottish Educational Journal. On 30th June, 1970, the hon. Member wrote:
Within the education budget itself, we are going to shift the emphasis in favour of the primary schools. At our Party Conference in Perth last month, I said 'It is there'"—
that is, in the primary schools—
'that every child receives the groundwork on which all future educational attainment is built … it is his experience of primary school that shapes the understanding, tolerance and judgment which will determine his approach to later stages of education and, indeed, to life itself'.
The hon. Gentleman went on:
I am sure this is true. What is certain is that a larger part of a growing education budget must be devoted to the primary schools.
I continue to read:
The present Government have been emphasising the better rate of primary school building completions. But approvals and starts have fallen back sharply, and the completion rate is therefore going to fall also. We must give priority to the deprived areas and to the 'mini-works' programme which can make such a world of difference to the existing older schools.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm some of those assertions. Is there to be a shift in emphasis within the educational programme from secondary to primary, and from further education to primary, or is it the intention to increase the total overall educational budget and within that increased total make increased provision for primary schools?
In a Written Answer of 8th July, the Secretary of State himself said:
I intend to give priority to the improvement of primary schools as resources permit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 59.]
That was the escape hole of which we shall no doubt hear a lot in years to come. It is very different from what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire wrote in the Scottish Educational Journal, where there was no question of making any such qualification or saying that so much depends on whether we get the additional resources.
There is no argument, I hope, about the desire and willingness of everyone to increase the supply and improve the quality of our teachers, to reduce the size of classes, to replace slum schools and generally to provide improving and increasing educational services for the community. I do not think that there is any disagreement about the high priority we must give to the primary schools and to the under-privileged child. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about what additional provision the present Government intend to make not only for the under-privileged children, but for the under-privileged areas, to which the Labour Government were committed, and were providing.
If the Government tell us that they intend to provide those resources it seems a contradiction at the same time to tell the public that they will decrease taxation. Wherever one looks in education, whether it be improvement in the numbers and the quality, and, therefore, in the salaries of teachers, or whether it be improving the quality and numbers of the buildings—from nursery schools to primary schools to secondary schools universities—there must be an increasing demand for financial resources, manpower resources, and the like.
In the last Government's White Paper on Public Expenditure, 1968–69 to 1973–74, it was envisaged that there would be an annual increase of expenditure on education of about 31½ per cent. At the moment education absorbs about 5·7 per cent. of the gross national product. To raise the school leaving age, to reduce the size of classes, to improve staffing ratios and to expand further education, would mean that the proportion of the gross national product devoted


to education would need to go up to 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. by 1980. It is estimated that to reach 9 per cent. of the gross national product by 1980 would require an annual increase in educational expenditure of over 7 per cent. between now and the mid-1970s. That is twice the amount in the White Paper issued by the last Government.
This is the main issue in our education debate, not the relatively unimportant—in terms of numbers and of money, but very important in principle—issues of fee-paying schools in Glasgow or Edinburgh and not even the principle of comprehensive education, although that too is important. It is the willingness of the Government and of the people that we should devote an increased and increasing proportion of our total national wealth year by year to improving the educational facilities of our children and our young people right from birth to their mid-twenties. This is the great issue.
As living standards improve, as the people's expectations increase with improved services of one kind and another, so the demand for improved educational standards will increase. That shows the gigantic fraud perpetrated by the Conservative Party in the election when they pretended that they could reduce taxation without restricting the growth of the social services, notably education. I do not think there is a people in the world more interested in and more enthusiastic about education than the Scottish people. I had more questions in the election about education than about any other subject. In this context it seems absurd and almost obscene that the Tory Party in Scotland seemed so obsessed with the determination to retain the relatively few fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh. There are little over 11,000 children at them compared with about 1 million in local authority schools.
This élitist concept of education belongs to the nineteenth, not to the twentieth, century. It has no place in a modern democratic society. It will be the law from August, 1970, that fee paying in those schools must stop. The present Government cannot introduce legislation to repeal that before August, 1970. Therefore, Glasgow and Edinburgh Corporations may be in breach of the

law after August, 1970. I wonder what the Government are to do to make sure that Edinburgh Corporation and Glasgow Corporation conform to the law. The Tory Party said that it was the party of law and order. Let hon. Members opposite make sure that Edinburgh Corporation and Glasgow Corporation obey the law after August this year. I am amazed that there is no Law Officer present to advise the Under Secretary on that point. We shall return to it after the Recess to make sure that these corporations obey the law.
Whatever was said in answer to Questions last week or the week before, the Tory Government want to thwart comprehensive education. They do not intend doing that by outright condemnation. No, they are too astute to do that. They know that it is too popular with parents and teachers and all authorities in education. They agree that comprehensive education based on non-selectivity at 11-plus or 12-plus or any other arbitrary age is a nonsense. It is a nonsense in educational terms, in economic terms and in social terms. The hon. Gentleman has said, "We will give local authorities freedom to do what they like in this field." I wonder.
Will they give local authorities freedom to do what they like when the school leaving age is raised to 16? Of course they will not. The central Government must lay down general principles of educational policy and they must, at some point, say, "You shall accept and obey the law which is passed by Parliament." Therefore, the Government must have a view on comprehensive education. There can be no compromise. It is impossible to say that we can have selective schools based on a selective examination followed by segregation of children at 11- or 12-plus and comprehensive education based on non-selectivity. We can have one or the other but not both.
The recent circular which the hon. Gentleman sent out on behalf of the Scottish Education Department invites reactionary local education authorities to put the clock back. A Question was asked by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) inviting him almost to thwart the determination of the progressive Aberdeen local authority to go


ahead with its comprehensive system. I think the hon. Gentleman will say, "Yes, I will allow them to go ahead with it." I hope he will say the same about Glasgow Corporation when it becomes Labour-controlled at the next local elections and chooses to deal with fee-paying schools.
In our view comprehensive education represents an enormous improvement in educational opportunities for large numbers of children. It recognises that purely academic ability is not the only talent that matters and not necessarily the most important talent of a child. It recognises that it is the duty and the obligation of an educational system to ensure that the talents and abilities of all children are developed to the maximum. It is not only educationally sound, but economically this is very wise. In the society in which we now live we depend to an increasing degree on skilled craftsmen and skilled technicians—more so probably than on Greek or Latin scholars, particularly the Greek scholars.
There can be no compromise on this issue. Schools based on selectivity and schools based on the comprehensive principle cannot exist side by side: the one type contradicts the other. Children cannot be creamed off by a selective examination and sent to one school whilst all the others are sent to comprehensive schools. This was why the Labour Government tended to ensure that fee-paying schools would be stopped and selectivity end.
Although the success of the comprehensive system cannot be assessed only by S.C.E. results, it is worth emphasising, especially to those who doubt whether academic standards could be retained as comprehensive education expands, that as comprehensive reorganisation has proceeded in Scotland in the last few years the number of S.C.E. presentations at the higher grade from Scottish schools rose from 61,000 in 1964 to 94,000 in 1969. Taking that test alone, there can be no doubt but that the progressive advance of comprehensive education in Scotland has not meant a reduction in the quality of academic standards. All the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Another step forward taken before the election was the announcement of the raising of the leaving age to 16 in 1972–73. That raises many problems. No doubt the Under-Secretary will try to find excuses for not implementing it. We shall not accept them. Let him not think that there is any reasonable excuse for delaying this advance. There are problems of staffing and of buildings, but the bulk of the school building accommodation that will be needed at that time is already built, in course of building, or about to start building. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not use the argument of lack of accommodation as an excuse for delaying the raising of the leaving age in 1972–73.
The more important problem is that of teacher supply. The situation has somewhat improved in the last few years. In 1964 the number entering colleges for primary teacher training was 2,049. In 1969 the number was 3,182, which figure did not include Bachelor of Education students. That improvement enabled the last Government to make proposals for the first improvement to be implemented in 20 years as to the number of pupils in primary school classes.
Problems still exist on the primary side as well as on the secondary side, problems not necessarily overall but on a geographical and on a subject basis—for instance, in mathematics and science. The question of teacher supply is patchy in various parts of the country, as is the supply of teachers for certain subjects. The supply problem is particularly acute in the industrial West.
It is probably unfair to ask the hon. Gentleman to say what he is doing about it now, because I appreciate the impossibility of getting instant government, except in the more reactionary spheres where hon. Members opposite specialise. However, the hon. Gentleman was a great expert at instant opposition. He will get a little of his own medicine in the next few years. This is the beginning of it.
The last Government made proposals for a new bachelor of teacher training which would involve a short period at a college of education followed by a longer period in a school and a further short period at college. Payment of the teacher's salary would be from the date


of entry to the school. The Labour Government calculated that the great advantage was that this scheme would considerably increase the attraction of teaching to graduates and diploma holders, and that it would result in the introduction into the schools for most of the year of an addition to the teaching force of over 2,000 teachers. This was not to be shuffled off as other than a considerable addition to the overall teaching force. That, plus the additional recruitment which might be expected on a long-term basis, would have a considerable effect on the staffing position.
I have said that to let the Under-Secretary understand that, although the size of the staffing problem should not under-estimated, it should not be exaggerated either and should not be used as an excuse for not raising the leaving age. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make appropriate noises to satisfy us.
I have said a little of what I wanted to say. I see two or three of my hon. Friends who probably want to say a few words on other aspects of the educational problem. It is appropriate that our first debate on Scottish matters should be on education. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some assurance about some of the matters I have raised.

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for initiating this important discussion. He was right to stress the importance of pre-school play groups. These groups have received too little attention in the past decade. This problem should receive more attention at Government level than it has received over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian), when he held the position now occupied by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) as Under-Secretary in charge of education, paid a treat deal of attention to this problem.
There has been a great growth in preschool play groups, particularly in the west of Scotland. I have visited a number of the groups which operate in my constituency. I am sure that the Under-Secretary has

seen those that operate in his constituency, which borders on mine.
The women who operate the groups—on a purely voluntary basis—do a splendid job. For a long time they have been running the groups on a shoestring. It is right that we should try in some way to formalise the relationship which the Government and education authorities have with these groups and do what we can to encourage them in the way of finance. I say without disrespect to the young ladies who run the groups that a little professional help and advice would be welcomed by them in the important work that they do.
My hon. Friend was right also to emphasise the need for more to be done for nursery schools. A good deal of encouragement has been given to nursery schools in the past, but we hope that some of the pledges given implicitly over the past two or three years by members of the present Government and by some of the Under-Secretary's hon. Friends will be put into effect.
I come now to the problem of education for deaf children. I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for not giving him notice. I looked for him earlier today to tell him that I wished to raise this matter, and, although I do not expect a reply today, I hope that he will think seriously about it.
There is only a limited range of facilities for the education of deaf children at the secondary level. I asked a Question about this the other day and urged that there should be a greater number of places for the training of people to teach deaf children. It is important work, and we do not yet have enough places of that kind. I realise the difficulties and limitations, but I hope that we shall go forward with the training of teachers for this purpose and also try to do more for these youngsters, particularly at the secondary school stage. Children born deaf are under a severe handicap, and we ought to give a lot more attention to their needs.
Now, the question of teacher supply. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West was feeling particularly sympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and his political fortunes, but I am sure that, with his great compassion, he was probably expressing a good deal of sympathy


for the hon. Gentleman in not being able to sit in the place on the Front Bench now occupied by the Under-Secretary. However, one can understand that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire gave too many hostages to fortune in his many speeches on this subject. I heard a great deal of what he and his hon. Friends said they would do were they to come to power. They gave great pledges and on many occasions expressed hysterical condemnation of the teacher shortage, and so on. I hope that we shall not hereafter discuss the question of education in Scotland in quite that way.
Tribute should be paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton for tackling the problem of teacher shortage realistically. One of the first acts of the Labour Government in Scotland was to set up the General Teachers Council, an obvious attempt to improve the status of teachers and to make them feel that they had a truly important part to play in the work of the community. My hon. Friend spoke of the improvement, particularly in primary schools, and it is right to point out that my right hon. Friend did a splendid job in this respect, though that is not to say that we are in any way complacent, since we realise that a tremendous amount still remains to be done.
My own county of Lanarkshire is not the easiest of counties from the point of view of education, but even there we have seen a great improvement in the number of teachers in primary schools. I used to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in Government to direct their attention to the size of classes in these schools. I know that this is a matter of discussion and consultation between the Department and the various teachers' organisations, but it has always puzzled me that the code lays down a smaller class size in England than in Scotland. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will direct a sympathetic mind to this question. I see a prospect now for reducing the size of our primary school classes, and I hope that we shall in the next few years at least bring the English and Scottish code sizes to the same level.
I do not for a moment suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends solved

the problem in the primary schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West said, it was helped in many parts of the country but it remains difficult in others. There was a great improvement in both primary and secondary schools, though none of us doubts that this remains a difficult problem and one to which the hon. Gentleman ought to apply his undoubted energies.
Now, one or two suggestions. I hope that the special recruitment scheme will continue—I am sure that it will—and produce even more teachers in our secondary schools. I have often thought about the position of honours graduates wishing to take up secondary school teaching in Scotland. We ask someone who has completed a four-year honours course at Glasgow University, say, to think about becoming a teacher, and we say, "You will do a full year at Jordan-hill Training College, Murrayhouse or elsewhere, and during that time we shall give you a grant to help you complete your studies". But one of the significant factors in the situation-I have found this in meeting students and young graduates leaving university, particularly young women—is that they are already engaged. Many of the young girls have engagement rings on and are plainly thinking of getting married.
We ask these young people to go to training college instead of taking a job in industry, a job which would immediately bring them a salary of, perhaps, £1,200 or £1,300 a year. That is the choice we put to them, either to take a job or to continue training for an extra year. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West discussed the way our thinking should go on how to treat these people. I believe there to be a serious barrier in the minds of young people who want to go on to teaching when they see that for a whole year they must lose what could be a good salary in industry. Many of them, as I say, are engaged and thinking of getting married and setting up a home.
It put it to the hon. Gentleman—with true impartiality, I put it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock when he was Secretary of State—that we should thinking of employing people from the moment they complete


their four-year honours course at university. Let us talk to the education authorities about taking these people into employment immediately and paying them the full salary, not just a grant, while they are at training college.
If we make progress in teacher recruitment during the next few years, it will still be important to do something about school building. In my own county we have made a lot of progress, much more than I should have imagined possible. During the last four years, in Rutherglen alone we have spent about £1½ million on providing some excellent school places. But we have a particular difficulty in Lanarkshire. Being on the boundary with Glasgow, we have a great deal of unofficial overspill.
There is one matter which I should like the Under-Secretary to consider, although I do not ask him to say anything about it today. In my area we have both official and unofficial overspill from Glasgow. With his knowledge of the city, the Under-Secretary will know that in Rutherglen we have hundreds of people who have come to live there from Glasgow and who now live in Burnside or Bishopbriggs which is almost a new town. This is completely unofficial overspill, and the Government do not give Lanarkshire County Council any form of overspill subsidy to provide necessary services, and their cost is a heavy burden on the county council.
The new town of East Kilbride also makes a great demand on the council's resources. This may be why there has been a substantial increase in the county rates in the last few days. They have risen by about 3s. in the £, depending on the district. In no small measure the increase has been due to the burden of providing educational facilities. I hope that over the next few years the Secretary of State will consider the problem of Lanarkshire and similar counties and will do something to relieve their financial burdens.
One of the greatest difficulties in the West of Scotland, as is known to both the Under-Secretary and myself, in the provision of community centres and other recreational facilities on vast housing schemes. The problem is to find something useful for young people to do.

In their days of opposition, Conservatives mouthed encouragement of the provision of community centres in new housing schemes. I appreciate the work done by the Y.M.C.A. and other voluntary organisations, but much more could be done to provide community centres and other recreational facilities. The Under-Secretary knows the Cathkin and Spring-hall area in my constituency where there are now thousands of people. Lanarkshire requires every encouragement to build centres of this kind and to provide facilities such as football pitches and tennis courts, and by encouragement I mean providing the finance.
In Scotland we have always been proud of having provided good schooling for our children and good tutoring in our universities for our young people. In the last analysis, it boils down to the amount of money made available. I trust that the Government will give as much priority to educational finance as the Labour Government did and that Lanarkshire and other counties throughout Scotland will be given the financial assistance they need to do their important work.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. James Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for having initiated this debate on Scottish education. He covered many issues. He mentioned comprehensive education and fee-paying schools. The Under-Secretary will agree with me that in Glasgow there is general agreement about the acceptability of and necessity for comprehensive education, but great disagreement about the need for fee-paying schools. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that in 1971 there will be a change of local government in Glasgow and that many of the issues which now concern him will then be taken care of.
I am concerned with the financial aspect of the provision of education. We will continue to ask the Scottish Education Department to spend more, although—having read the policy statements of the Conservative Party—without much hope. We are aware that almost every city treasurer is concerned not with preventing an increase in rates, but with


stabilising existing rates. Glasgow is no exception. We have already seen the actions of the city treasurer, assisted by his friends, which have already slowed down development in the city, with an effect on education, too.
I had the good fortune to see the opening of a new school in the east end of Glasgow. It was a measure of tremendous progress. It was to replace an old and obsolete school. However, when the new primary school was completed, it was decided to keep the old school to do the same job for the next 10 or 15 years. Two or three weeks ago, I attended a prize giving at a primary school which was almost 150 years old. One wonders how teachers can teach in conditions like that. When treasurers are making up their budgets for next year, as they now are, one knows that education will be among the services to suffer.
It may be argued that the provision of new schools is desperately needed, but the reply will be that the necessary finance is not available. The subject of education and its financial implications was raised in an editorial in the Glasgow Evening Times last night. It pleaded that funds should be made available by the Government so that Glasgow could enjoy the educational facilities so badly needed. This is a plea which has been made time and time again, regardless of which party has been in power. I make no apology for again making the plea that more of the expenditure on education should come from central funds. If what we have seen in recent years is any guide—and I mean the cutting back of expenditure of all forms within Glasgow—I do not look forward with confidence to an expansion of educational facilities within the city.
Knowing the city as he does, and knowing what is needed, the Under-Secretary will, I hope, urge his colleagues to appreciate the importance of making more and more money available to the city fathers so that they may proceed not to cut back, but to increase expenditure on education and to provide the buildings so badly needed.
I do not wish to put questions to the Under-Secretary without warning.

I have merely taken the opportunity to put the point of view of a constituency in the east end of Glasgow.

1.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Edward M. Taylor): This has been an extremely interesting debate and I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for taking advantage of the fact that the business of the House finished a little earlier than usual and raising this subject. I should like to thank him, too, for his courtesy in advising us beforehand that he would be raising the subject. He was less than just to himself when he said that only two of his hon. Friends had come to listen to him. If it had been generally known that the hon. Gentleman was raising this important matter of Scottish education I am sure that most of his colleagues would have been here, because I know that they are as greatly interested in this subject as he is.
The general point made in the debate by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) and the hon. Member for Fife, West was that there are many educational priorities, such as more secondary schools, more teachers and more further education colleges. They asked whether these priorities will be given the attention they deserve and how we propose to achieve all that we want to achieve while, at the same time, making reductions in taxation to which my party is committed.
If hon. Members look for an answer to this apparent enigma I suggest that they should look to the last period of Conservative government between 1951 and 1964. It will be seen then that we had the most dramatic advances in all the social services and, at the same time, because the national cake was growing faster as a result of substantial increases in productivity, we were able to reduce taxation. It is impossible to draw these two things apart. They are inter-related. It is our hope and it will be our endeavour to achieve the success achieved by the last Conservative Government and, by increasing growth throughout the economy, to have a larger cake to share out.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen for his constructive and helpful suggestions on the teacher supply situation and the steps which might be taken to improve it. He mentioned especially the problem of school places for deaf children and the training of teachers for such schools. Although he said that he did not expect a reply, because he had not given me notice, I am happy to say that in my first few days of office I have been taking a real interest in this question and am able to provide him with some figures.
The present position in Scotland is that we have about 350 places in the secondary departments of special schools for the deaf. At the last count, 260 of these places have been taken up so it appears that in Scotland as a whole we do not have a real shortage of places. However, the pattern varies from place to place. We have special schools for the deaf. In fact, I have made a special study of this. We have in Glasgow, the Glasgow school for the deaf, St. Vincent's school, and Park House school. In Edinburgh, we have Donaldson's school, and St. Giles' school. In Lanarkshire, there are Auchinraith school, Dalton school, and Drumpark school. There are also schools for the deaf in Stirling, Dunbartonshire, Aberdeen and in Dundee. Some of these have many places available, some of them a few.
The hon. Member also spoke about future developments. All education authorities are considering the expansion of the teaching service which would enable a number of children with some degree of hearing to remain in ordinary schools with the support of specially qualified teachers. The Glasgow Education Authority is about to begin work on a new school for the deaf at a cost of approximately £400,000. Further provision is also being made in Ayrshire. In a reply which I gave the other day I informed the House that one-year courses for teachers of the deaf were introduced at Moray House College of Education in October, 1969. The number of places next session for these specialist teachers is being increased from 12 to 24.
In addition to Moray House there are courses available at Manchester, London and Dublin for Scottish teachers and the

output from all these courses is expected to meet the demand in Scotland. The number of teachers at present serving at schools for the deaf is generally considered to be adequate. I hope that this gives the hon. Gentleman some idea of what is happening. I can assure him that I have taken a careful note of what he has said. This is a real problem and I hope to be saying more about special schools and the provision for handicapped children before too long.
The hon. Member for Fife, West raised the important question of the school leaving age. He said that the last Government planned to raise the leaving age in 1972–73. He said it would be scandalous and indefensible if we were to postpone this date for any reason. This is something of which the previous Government had real experience. We know that it is a big problem and I want to say clearly without any small print that it is the intention of the present Administration to go ahead with raising the school leaving age in 1972–73.
It is certainly our intention, but it would be dishonest if I did not say at this early stage that it will involve real problems. Principally, there will be the problem of teacher supply. The latest estimate is that, as a result of raising the age, we may have a shortage of over 3,000 teachers in Scotland. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen for saying that he hoped that the steps being taken through the special recruitment scheme and in other ways would make a contribution. Even if we take these measures into account, measures to improve the distribution of secondary teachers as well as the recruitment of them, we still anticipate this shortage.
This could mean that an increasing number of children who stay on voluntarily at secondary schools, and we want this to continue, will not have an adequate education. I do not want to give the impression that it will be easy or smooth to do this but it is our intention. The hon. Member will appreciate at this point of time that while we can do something to help, we certainly cannot produce new teachers overnight. We do intend to raise the leaving age on the date mentioned, but I do not want to give the false impression that it will be an easy job.
The hon. Member mentioned staffing and he is right when he says that the shortage at present is geographical involving special subjects such as maths and science. He will know that proposals were circulated in I think April, 1969, by the previous Administration to authorities in Scotland suggesting means whereby they might be able to do something about certain shortages in particular areas. These are now under active review and I hope that firm proposals will be brought forward very soon.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen gave a great deal of attention to teacher training and we have committed ourselves to making inquiries on this subject. Our main advisory body is the General Teaching Council and that is why my right hon. Friend will be asking for initial views on the steps to be taken to improve the present arrangements for teacher training.
Now we come to the question of primary school building and other building. The hon. Member for Fife, West asked for an assurance that we would carry on the good work of the previous Administration. I know that he makes a very careful study of all the facts and figures before making such a statement, but I hope that he will make a special point of looking again at the school building figures achieved, announced and planned by the previous Administration. There was an announcement in the House on 21st April that about £50 million would be available for building to start during 1970–71 and 1971–72, and probably a total of £21 million for the year 1972–73. Let us look at the figures for the past few years. In 1967–68 the figure was £31 million; 1968–69, £28 million, a reduction; 1969–70, £28 million; 1970–71, a planned £27 million; 1971–72, a planned £23 million; and 1972–73, a planned £21 million. Quite apart from the fall in the value of money, which procedeed at a very rapid pace under the previous Government, we have in cash terms a programme which has been declining and was planned to decline further. If the hon. Gentleman is saying to me, "Carry on the good work", let him pay a little more attention to the "good work" carried out by the previous Administration.
Apart from the global figures, we have the question of the primary schools. It

is our clear intention that more priority should be given to primary school building. We shall see whether primary schools can be given greater priority in the building programme, the replacement of old schools and the relief of overcrowding. Primary education is absolutely vital. We want to provide roofs over heads where those roofs are now inadequate. This must be done, and we intend to proceed with it as quickly as possible. I hope to be in touch with local authorities and all those concerned to see what their future building plans are. It is our intention that more priority should be given wherever possible to the building of primary schools, particularly in areas of need where old schools need to be replaced.
We are committed to trying to bring down the maximum size of class to 40 pupils. If there were any great improvement in the teacher-supply situation we would hope that further steps could be taken.
I was very interested in what the hon Members for Fife, West and Rutherglen said about nursery schools and pre-school groups. The hon. Member for Fife, West was kind enough to refer to a Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) the other day that:
A new nursery school for Dundee providing 80 full-time places has recently been approved and three further proposals for the provision of some 160 full-time nursery places are under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 54.]
It is true that since 1945, under successive Governments, it has not been possible to make progress in the building of nursery schools as we would wish. We have clearly stated that we shall encourage nursery education to develop where authorities have enough teachers and accommodation, and we shall try to make funds available for developments in socially-deprived areas. When resources are limited it is important that what we can spend on nursery schools—and we accept that they are very important—should be concentrated in the areas where they are particularly needed, the socially-deprived areas. We hope to make progress in this direction.
I have taken very careful note of what the hon. Member for Rutherglen said about the pre-school groups and the


need to provide assistance for them. I shall look very carefully into what he has said and will bear his comments very much in mind in our future deliberations.
We had from all three hon. Members who have spoken what I think they regarded as a very important question—the change alleged to have taken place when the new Administration took over with regard to the planning of secondary education. I want to make it crystal-clear, in view of some of the extreme language used by the hon. Member for Fife, West, who said that the new Administration's taking over marked the end of any further progress in Scottish education and that the Conservatives want to thwart comprehensive education, and in view of statements made elsewhere, that it is not the Government's intention to force any particular form of secondary education on local authorities.
We issued a circular letter, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have read with the care and attention he usually gives to all such Government publications and circulars. He will have seen that the wording could not have been clearer. We spent a great deal of time trying to get the wording right to make it quite clear to local authorities that where they had had proposals accepted which were working well and with which they were well satisfied we would not wish them to upset them in any way. The jack boot has been locked up by this Administration so far as secondary school provision is concerned. We are not saying to local authorities, "This is what must be done. This is how it should be done." We have told them that they are free to plan the secondary education which they think is most suited for their locality.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman say that he thinks that it is good to allow education authorities to select and segregate children by means of an arbitrary examination at 11 or 12-plus?

Mr. Taylor: What I will say to the hon. Gentleman quite clearly is that I do not believe that it is right for a

Government to impose their wishes concerning the form of secondary education in any area. The local electors are in touch with their representatives and we should leave the local authorities to make the right decisions.

Mr. Hamilton: The Government must have a point of view on whether it is educationally desirable to select and segregate children at the age of 12-plus. They need not necessarily say that local education authorities must do this or that. All that the hon. Gentleman is obliged to do as a Minister is to say what his view is—whether it is an educationally and socially indefensible view that children should be selected, and selected at 12-plus.

Mr. Taylor: I have made it absolutely clear—and at this early stage after our circular it would be misinterpreted if I said anything else—that we believe it is right and proper that local authorities should decide the appropriate arrangements within their own area. This is the freedom we intend to give them, and we are sure that it will be used responsibly.
The hon. Gentleman has complained because we are not imposing comprehensives everywhere in Scotland. Does he think that the Government should impose comprehensive education? Could he give a straight answer to that question?

Mr. Hamilton: My party believes in the comprehensive principle, and when we were in Government we passed legislation to insist that the minority of local education authorities which were thwarting the will of Parliament should be brought into line. That is what we said we would do, and that is what we said about fee-paying schools, too. The Government of the day must take a view on education policy in its broad principles, and local education authorities to that extent are inhibited in what they should do.

Mr. Taylor: Nothing could be clearer. The hon. Gentleman has said that he believes that the Government's job is to say to local authorities, "Irrespective of your circumstances and geographical problems and the views of parents in your community you should have a policy of comprehensive education".

Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Hamilton rose—

Mr. Taylor: I must continue because time is going on.

Mr. Hamilton: We have three hours.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I know that it is highly embarrassing for him to hear these points.

Mr. Hamilton: On the contrary, I am enjoying it. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the bulk of Scottish parents are against comprehensive education? All the evidence is to the contrary.

Mr. Taylor: I am saying no such thing. I am saying that views can differ, and I do not believe that just because a majority of people accept that certain forms of arrangement are suitable for their locality we should impose them everywhere else. That is not a position which the Government are prepared to accept.
If we were to accept what the hon. Member for Fife, West suggests—and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) here; he will be shocked to hear this—we should impose comprehensive education throughout Scotland irrespective of what local people and parents want. We would have to be absolutely convinced that it was a right and proper system.
I appreciate that in certain circumstances comprehensive schools have enormous advantages. They can perhaps integrate themselves into a community more readily than any other form of secondary education. Undoubtedly they can provide opportunities for late developers which may not be available in other forms of organisation. But if the hon. Member for Fife, West thinks that by imposing comprehensive educaiton everywhere equality of opportunity for all children in Scotland will be achieved he must be living in cloud cuckoo land. The hon. Gentleman must know that, with universal, territorial comprehensive schools, particularly in our cities, because of the ways in which they have been planned and have developed, there are certain areas in which no one objects to them and there will be no teacher shortage, no behaviour problem and no question of many children leaving

at the earlier school leaving age. But in other areas there will be a concentration of the teacher shortage and all the problems which go with education.
Does the hon. Member for Bridgeton believe that everywhere in a great city like Glasgow, with its differing circumstances and problems, there will be equality of education for children in every comprehensive school?

Mr. James Bennett: What are the views on comprehensive education and the consensus of opinion among organisations dealing with teachers and education generally such as the E.I.S., the National Union of Teachers and the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association?

Mr. Taylor: It is clear that what is called opinion among the majority of people in education appears to favour comprehensive schools, and we have comprehensive schools in the majority of Scottish local authorities. But that is a far cry from saying that, because such opinions exist, comprehensive education should be imposed everywhere. The hon. Gentleman would accept that this is a matter for Parliament to decide. This was one of the issues in the election in which the hon. Member for Fife, West will accept it was crystal clear where both sides stood.

Mr. William Hamilton: But not in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says, "But not in Scotland". He has set out in his speech a remarkable new constitutional proposal. He said that the Government have not a mandate in Scotland. If he looks at the figures of votes he might not be carried away like that. But what he is suggesting is that Governments do not need to get a mandate from the people of Britain; they need to get one from the people of England and from the people of Scotland and then presumably a mandate from the people of Wales and from the people of Northern Ireland. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting? If it is, on what authority did the 1964 Labour Government proceed to impose a whole series of Socialist measures on the people of England? Did they have a clear mandate?
What the hon. Member for Fife, West is apparently advocating in what he says


about separate mandates is virtually what we have heard from representatives of the Scottish National Party. They have said the countries are different and that there should be separate mandates and separate rules for the game. Although I have seen the hon. Member for Fife, West stand on his head politically on many occasions, I never thought the day would come when he would be standing firmly behind the Scottish Nationalists in suggesting a Scottish mandate. This is a remarkable turn-about which will cause a great deal of amusement throughout Scotland.
I come to the problem of fee paying in Scottish schools. What the previous Government wanted—and they made it crystal clear by their legislation on fee paying and by the proposals on direct grant schools which they asked the Public Schools Commission to look at—was independent schools at one end, with no State subsidy, no grants, or local authority contributions, and free education at the other. We would have the two extremes. We would have at one end independent schemes at which the fees were very high indeed, without any grants or assistance, and free education at the other. What the hon. Member for Fife, West and his colleagues propose is that there should be freedom of education only for the wealthy and rich and for those who can pay very substantial fees. This is a most appalling and most scandalous proposal. We believe that there should be freedom of choice in education for as many people as possible, and when a local authority wishes to continue arrangements for paying fees in a minority of schools, we think that it should have that freedom restored to it.
The policy of the present Administration is clear. It is a consistent policy which we stood by firmly in opposition and to which we still hold now that we are in power. As the hon. Member for Fife, West rightly said, we can talk about nursery schools, further education, universities and teachers and ask for more money to be spent on them. But at the end of the day it depends on the money available and the resources.
The hon. Member for Fife, West said to me, "Can you promise that there will be more resources for education and that there will be a larger share of the national

Cake for education?" I cannot do any such thing. To give such a promise would be wholly irresponsible. What we can do is to look forward and say that if we can achieve the dynamic growth and the rapid advance in the economy which we had under the previous Conservative Administration we can achieve both things that we want to achieve: we can reduce taxation and make life more tolerable for those working in this country, and at the same time we can have an increase in the cash spent on all the social services which are so vital to the community.

Mr. William Hamilton: I made the point that fee paying in Scotland is to be abolished as from 1st August, 1970. The House presumably will be in recess then and until late October, so that the corporations of Edinburgh and Glasgow will be in breach of the law at that period until it is repealed. What will the hon. Gentleman and the Government do to ensure that those corporations conform to the law?

Mr. Taylor: So far as I am aware, neither authority intends to defy the law. Glasgow has indicated that it may wish to make use of the power to charge fees for social, cultural and recreational activities in certain schools, but it would argue, and has argued, that it was clearly working within the law. This is the view which the Glasgow Corporation holds. It contends that it is working within the law, but I accept that this is perhaps an unsatisfactory situation. That is why we want to try to clear up the whole question and put the matter beyond doubt by restoring power to these local authorities to charge fees.
The only answer to our educational problem is to ensure that we have more money to share out. This will ensure that all the problems and all the points which have been put so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bridgeton about the special problems of Glasgow and the problems referred to by the hon. Member for Rutherglen appertaining to Lanark-shire, and those detailed by the hon. Member for Fife, West, can be solved. The problems can be resolved only when we have more resources. Looking to the future, I am sure that under a Conservative Government and by adopting Conservative policies those things which we all desire will he capable of achievement.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) wishes to raise a matter on the Adjournment, to which there is no Minister present to reply. I would, if I may, like to give the hon. Member the advice of the Chair upon this matter and, if he will bear with me for a moment, to tell him of the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker's predecessor, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, on a similar occasion in 1964 when an hon. Member sought to do what the hon. Member for Northfield is seeking to do today, and what he is entitled to do.
On that occasion, when an hon. Member sought to raise a matter on the Adjournment because no hon. Member had claimed the Adjournment debate, which is what the hon. Member is seeking to do, and what he is entitled to do under the rules of order, Mr. Speaker said:
I will explain the difficulty. My predecessors and I have always deprecated the introduction of subjects in an Adjournment debate unless due notice has been given to the Minister concerned. The reason is really that, apart from the House of Commons point of view, an ex parte statement without reply is not a very valuable Parliamentary proceeding.
The hon. Member … is in order in raising this matter. I cannot prohibit him from doing so, but I deprecate the practice unless notice has been given to the Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1964; Vol. 689, c. 799–80.]
By "notice" Mr. Speaker meant adequate notice, to make sure that the Minister could be here.
As we all know, the hon. Member for Northfield is a new Member of the House and perhaps does not realise the complete Parliamentary situation about this. I want to emphasise that there is no intention on the part of the Chair to hold him down, because under the rules of order he is entitled to speak now if he so wishes. It is, however, the duty of the Chair to point out these matters, and to express the hope that the hon. Member will realise the position as set out by the Chair and will seek, as almost all hon. Members try to do, to take the guidance of the Chair, which is completely impartial, and do what the Chair

believes to be best in the interests of Parliament.

Mr. Carter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the advice of Mr. Speaker's Office I tried for some hours this morning to contact the office of the Minister of Technology. I find it disgraceful that no Minister is there, and that no Minister is to be found anywhere within the vicinity of the House. It may be that this is the first sign that there are not enough Ministers to go round. The Government have taken some self-praise for cutting down the number of Ministers, but this may be the first sign that they will have to increase the number of Ministers available to deal with the business of the House.
There is on the Front Bench opposite an hon. Member who is responsible for Scottish affairs. He declared that he has some detailed knowledge of economic matters in Scotland. Would he not be an appropriate Minister to reply to the debate, since the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, about which I wish to speak, is deeply involved in Scottish affairs? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like this opportunity to go by without stating from his point of view, as a Scottish Member, the tremendous job which the I.R.C. has done in Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not quite the same thing, because the Minister concerned ought to be here, and he should be briefed by his Department to give a satisfactory reply to the House and to the hon. Member who raises the debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has no knowledge of this matter, and cannot really make a useful contribution to the debate.
The hon. Member having heard my views on the matter, I should like to feel that he would want to take heed of what I have said, and would therefore feel inclined to raise the matter on another occasion when he will have ample opportunity and every encouragement to do so. Having said that, I feel that I must leave it to the good sense of the hon. Member to do what he thinks is right.
The hon. Member is within his rights under the rules of order to raise the issue that he has in mind, and I would die in the last ditch to uphold his right


to do so. I have no right to stop him, but I feel that I have put the matter to him fairly, and I leave it to him to decide what he thinks is best.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We appreciate the advice that you have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), as no doubt he does. I should be the last person in the world to expect a junior Minister at the Scottish Office to answer questions on technology, or any other matter come to that.
My hon. Friend gave notice to the Ministry of Technology nearly three hours ago. There are three or four Ministers at that Ministry, and it would be reasonable to assume, would it not, that one of them would be in the London office? If the Minister cannot be here, it is a deplorable abuse of Parliament. As you have said, my hon. Friend is entitled to make his speech. I do not know whether he wants to, or whether he will want to put down an Early Day Motion deploring this abuse of Parliament by the Ministry of Technology.
We are presented with an opportunity to debate for more than two and a half hours a matter of crucial importance to the development areas and, indeed, to the industrial restructuring of the whole of our economy. The I.R.C. is a matter of great concern. The present Government, when they were the Opposition, made great play of what they would do with this organisation when they took office. The Ministry has known since 11 o'clock this morning that this matter was likely to be raised, and there has been no attempt by any of these three or four Ministers to come here. This is an absolute disgrace, and their conduct ought to be severely censured by the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Chair is in no way responsible for whether or not Ministers are here. That is a matter between Ministers and the hon. Members concerned. The hon. Gentleman has made his protest, which he is entitled to do. I hope that he will be content to leave the matter there.

Mr. Carter: As a new Member, I am obviously quite happy to accept the

guidance of the Chair. But, having been in this House for only a fortnight, I am rather disappointed, not with the procedure of the House, which I find reasonable and good, to find that when a hon. Member wishes to raise a matter of extreme national importance with Ministers of the Crown they hold this place in contempt. This is disturbing to me as a new Member. I have come here to do as much as I possibly can to assist the development and well-being of our nation only to find that I cannot be given the opportunity to put to the Minister concerned the subject that I wish to raise. I hope that if I have occasion in future to come to the House in order to raise a matter in a similar way, I shall be treated with a great deal more courtesy than has occurred on this occasion.

Mr. Edmund Dell: On a point of order. I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to define a little further the circumstances in which the Chair would deeply deprecate an hon. Member using an opportunity such as has occurred this afternoon to make a speech on a subject that is of concern to him in the absence of a Minister. The House will know that I used this exact procedure last Tuesday, although in that case I was fortunate in securing the attendance of a Minister.
Would the Chair deeply deprecate an hon. Member using this opportunity if that hon. Member had raised the matter with a Minister and had informed the Minister of his wish to raise such a matter in the House and the Minister had refused to come? If in those circumstances the Chair would deeply deprecate it, it would appear that the Minister is in a position to veto an opportunity which would otherwise come to an hon. Member to raise a matter in the House. It appears that in this instance my hon. Friend has warned the Minister; and, although there has not been a clear refusal, there has been a failure to attend. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would clarify this point to make sure that opportunities of hon. Members are not reduced by refusals, in fact or implicit, by Ministers to attend the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The situation, of course, is as the Chair finds it at the time when it has to adjudicate. What


happens behind the scenes, as it were, between an hon. Member such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) is not the direct concern of the Chair. What the Chair has to consider is the state of the House at the moment when the business has to be forwarded or concluded or whatever decision has to be taken. If the Chair finds that on a Motion for the Adjournment an hon. Member wishes to raise a matter and there is no Minister responsible present on the Front Bench, then the Chair is bound by the Ruling of its predecessors to say what are the facts of the case.
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) was present when I read out the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster.

Mr. Dell: Yes, I was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then he understands the situation. The point which has been made will be on the record and will not be lost on those concerned. But the Chair is concerned only with how it finds the situation when it has to make a decision. Finding the situation as I did, I felt bound to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Northfield to the Rulings of Mr. Speaker's predecessor in the Chair on the matter. That is as far as the Chair can go.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: We appreciate your difficulties, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in dealing with this problem, and I am sure you will appreciate that we do not seek to embarrass you with points of order. But we should like to have from the Government an idea of what they propose to do about the real dilemma in which the House is placed at this stage. My hon. Friend has given three or four hours' notice that he wished to raise this important question. We have not yet had an indication from the Patronage Secretary or from any other member of the Government how this problem can be solved. These points of order have now ensued for some considerable time and I should have thought that the Ministry of Technology could have had somebody here, or that there could at least have been somebody present from the Treasury. Indeed there is a whole range of 9 or 10 people who, in the course of the last 15 or 20 minutes, could have been sent to the House to reply to my

hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). May we be told by the Government Front Bench what the Government propose to do to assist my hon. Friend either today or on some future occasion so that such a unique opportunity as has arisen today will not be lost in the future?

Mr. William Hamilton: The Chair exists to protect minorities. This is a very important part of the duty of the Chair and clearly the point which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) raises an important constitutional issue.
We do not know where the Ministers in the Ministry of Technology are. It may well be that they are sitting in the office refusing to come here and therefore are depriving my hon. Friend of the opportunity of raising an extremely important point about the economy of Britain. If they are doing that, then they are deliberately flouting the will or the intention of a minority of this House.
Would you see fit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make inquiries about whether or not there is a Minister available in the Department, or whether they are all opening Tory Party garden fetes and think that that is more important than being here in the House? The Leader of the House should be sent for since he is involved in this matter. The Leader of the House during the Labour Government was invariably in the House on a Friday when problems of this kind cropped up. In fact, this problem never cropped up in the days of the Labour Government, but it has raised its head in the very first month of a Tory Government and it is indefensible. We are looking to you, Sir, to protect the legitimate interests of the minority which because of this insult to Parliament will in future be a very much more vocal minority than it is now proving to be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, West Mr. (William Hamilton) is an old parliamentary hand, as indeed am I. He knows as well as I do the duties of the Chair in these circumstances. The Chair cannot possibly be held responsible for the presence of Ministers to answer questions at any time. I feel that the points which have been raised have been amply aired and


that the disgust or disagreement about the fact that there are no Ministers present has been duly noted. That is substantially on the record. Having regard to what I have said about the Ruling of Mr. Speaker's predecessor, I should have thought the House would be content to let the matter rest there.

Mr. James Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have an indication of what constitutes "reasonable notice"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have thought that "reasonable notice" was notice enough to make sure that those who have to reply have sufficient time to get together the facts in order to be able to reply. That is a matter which must be settled between the hon. Member who seeks to raise a matter on the Adjournment and the Minister concerned. I hesitate to make a cast-iron Ruling but, as the hon. Member has asked me, I have told him my view. I very much hope that the House will be prepared to let the matter rest there, hon. Members having made ample and, I should have thought, sufficient protest at what they deem to be the situation.

Mr. Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it will assist the House, I can say, as representing the Government here, that I will certainly communicate to my right hon. Friend the circumstances of what has happened. In fairness, as you have pointed out, and as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) has rightly said, the hon. Member is a new Member and there may well have been some failure in communication. But it is right to say that it was very unexpected that a debate on such a major subject as Scottish education should have been concluded in such a relatively short time.

Mr. Carter: I have been in contact with the Ministers' office on three occasions and have been told that it knew where the Ministers were but had not managed to contact them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to that point of order. The comments of the Minister this afternoon have not helped this matter any further at all.

Mr. William Hamilton: As usual.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister is well aware of the practices and procedures of this House. He is not a new Member. He has taken advantage of this kind of situation when in Opposition on many occasions. Indeed, he might be described as a past master of the art of bringing Ministers to the House to answer important debates. He has never in the past found that Labour Ministers have been reluctant to come forward and answer when they have been invited to do so.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your remarks in answer to my hon. Friend made it clear that it is a matter of judgment as to whether sufficient notice has been given—[Interruption.]—and whether a Minister has had adequate time to prepare. I welcome very much the appearance of the Patronage Secretary and hope that even at this late stage he can give some explanation of the gross discourtesy, to put it no higher, of the Minister in failing to come forward this afternoon to answer my hon. Friend's very reasonable request given in due time for a debate.
As you have put the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a question of judgment. What the House will be clear about is that in exercising any kind of reasonable judgment at all, three hours' notice to come forward to answer a request for a debate on a subject could not be regarded as anything other than adequate. The whole House will take note of the failure of the Government on this occasion, and it will be widely regarded as a deliberate evasion of Ministerial responsibility.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 31.

Division No. 7.]
AYES
[2.3 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, R. T.
Cormack, Patrick


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bowden, Andrew
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
Dykes, Hugh




Fenner, Mrs. P. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Longden, Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Fowler, Norman
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)


Hayhoe, Barney
Peel, John
Tilney, John


Hunt, Roy (Newport)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



James, David
Redmond, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Kinsey, Joseph






NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, R. W.


Booth, Albert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E).
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Marquand, David
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Driberg Tom
Moyle Roland
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hilchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie



Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. William Hamilton and


Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor
Mr. Ray Carter.


MacColl, James
Spearing, Nigel



Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.